... it received a single "support" vote
There are two supporters including myself who indicated they are
willing to work on it, and it also recieved support at
Many of the implemented proposals received less formal process
support, for example:
... and at least four more just that I have looked through so far.
Moreover, according to the vote scoring system, I believe it ranked in
the top 8% out of several hundred proposals, although that information
is apparently no longer available.
... there's no basis to believe that this ... will
inaccuracies in the text
Do you believe that if you find an article about a geographic region
with the words "population 1,234,567" or "gross national product"
within the same grammatical clause as a number, and you know that text
was inserted 10 years ago, that you have not found a likely
out-of-date inaccuracy? What reason could there possibly be to believe
... It would require tens of thousands of person-hours
(if not more) to
analyse the data, and not a single article would be improved.
On the contrary, we can try it on 100 randomly selected vital
articles, and if we don't have enough data to make an extrapolation
with useful confidence intervals, we can try it on a slightly larger
sample of them. This is something the GSoC students can do themselves,
without and volunteer support. But what reason is there to believe
that such support won't be forthcoming if requested from the
copyeditor's guild or similar wikiproject, for example?
... Your proposal requires massive time commitment from
Why would it require any more time commitment than the existing 17,200
articles in [[Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual
verification]]? Where is the requirement? Volunteer editors are free
to spend their time in the manner which they believe will best serve
... it doesn't even fix out-of-date information.
Do you think actual fact checking should be done by people or bots?
... There is no indication at all that there is any
interest on the part
of Wikipedians to review data identified in the manner you propose.
Most of the WP:BACKLOG categories have articles entering and exiting
them every day. What reason is to believe that articles selected by an
automated accuracy review process would be any different?
... there's no basis to believe that this project
would have any
effect on accuracy
Even if you had airtight evidence that was incontrovertibly true (and
for the reasons above, there can obviously be no such evidence)
wouldn't it still be the case that there would only be one way to find
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:58 AM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
... relying on suggestions from a six-year-old strategy document
when we're about to start a new strategic session, isn't the best
course of action.
A strategy proposal which never garnered criticism after so many
opportunities would seem to qualify as at least an emergent strategy
within the meaning of the slide and narrative at
Furthermore, the initial limited subtask would be much more difficult
to evaluate as a strategy without a working prototype, including by
the Bot Approvals Group which demands working code before making a
final decision on implementation. Trying to second guess the BAG is
Is it possible that supporting updates to out of date articles would
not be part of any successful strategy for the Foundation? I have
posted multiple series of statistics to wiki-research-l in the past
several months proving that quality issues are transitioning from
creating new content to maintaining old content, and will be happy to
recapitulate them should anyone suggest that they think it could be.
what exactly is the plan for doing something with
It will be made available to volunteers as a backlog list which
community members may or may not choose to work on. The Foundation
can't prescribe mandatory content improvement work without putting the
safe harbor provisions in jeopardy. Volunteers will be attracted to
working on such updates in proportion to the extent they see them as
being a worthy use of their editing time.
I have additional detailed plans for testing which I will be happy to
discuss with interested co-mentors, because depending on available
resources there could be a way to eliminate substantial duplication of
I have updated the synopses at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review
>> I invite review of this preliminary proposal for a Google Summer of
>> Code project:
>> If you would like to co-mentor this project, please sign up. I've been
>> a GSoC mentor every year since 2010, and successfully mentored two
>> students in 2012 resulting in work which has become academically
>> relevant, including in languages which I can not read, i.e.,
.) I am most interested in
>> co-mentors at the WMF or Wiki Education Foundation involved with
>> engineering, design, or education.